You seem to have a good memory. William Hull, Stephen Van Rensselaer, and Henry Dearborn were all terrible generals. Canada/Britain had it's own share of cautious generals, but the above three were exceptionally cautious and not exactly wonderful tacticians.Originally Posted by Decker
At least in one battle we had a rediculous amount of men vs a force that was woefully outnumbered!
Out of the battles I mentioned, the British were outnumbered two to one in six, and by ten to one in at least one (Crysler's Farm). Then you have most of the action by the initial American offensives, such as the Battle of Fort Detroit (Brock convinced an American garrison, lead by William Hull - which outnumbered him almost 2-1 - to surrender) and the infamous (in Canada, at least) Battle of Queenston Heights, which lead to the death of General Brock and a victory by General Sheaffe, while the Americans under Van Rensselaer outnumbered the defenders about four, four and a half to one. Brock was one of only ten or fifteen deaths on the British side, killed leading a charge up a hill. He charged on foot, and had already been wounded once in the hand.
The American Navy did do quite well on the Great Lakes for certain.That and our Navy's excellent combat actions on the Great Lakes.
In Canada, what was taught when I was there was mainly about the Niagara and Detriot frontiers, with a quick mention of Washington. The Lake Champlain frontier was almost unmentioned.That's all I really know and remember from history class and from other sources...that I don't read up on.
Bookmarks